Spectacular Failure is broken

[Vladika]

...Heck, I played with a guy a little while back in my Conan game that said he'd quit the game if his character was killed...

Just got to love the Munchkins. So he wanted to be an immortal? The universe at large was just expected to forgive any dumb ass stunt he tried to pull off?:rofl:

I'll just stay home and send Munchkin Man out to deal with that Zho invasion fleet by himself. Why adventure with a guy like that?

 

[atpollard]

It makes sense to me ...

Fred the spaceman attempts to tie his shoelace in zero gravity. Pretty simple, so let's call it a 1D task. Per MM, Fred can not roll a spectacular failure (Fred accidentally strangles himself on the shoelace?) or a spectacular success (Fred ties a knot that cannot be physically untied?) ... So far that makes sense to me. Simple tasks do not lend themselves to being spectacular.

Fred the spaceman attempts to rebuild the carburetor on his 1957 Chevy replica. Let's call that a moderate 3D task. Fred can roll a spectacular result (his new carburetor gets 100 mpg or the car explodes when you attempt to start it), but the chance of a spectacular result is VERY low. ... That makes sense to me as well, moderate tasks are more likely to be a simple success or failure than some extreme result.

Fred the spaceman is trapped on an asteroid with a fountain pen, a roll of duct tape, a keg of ale and the jump drive from the wreck of a scout ship dating back to the First Imperium and intends to build a jump torpedo to fly himself back to civilization. Let's call "Fred's Folly" an 8D task (at least). I would see this task working as a spectacular success simply by its very nature!

So I have no problem with the fact that Fred has a better chance for spectacular results attempting a spectacular action than a simple action. It makes sense to me.

YMMV (and from 15 pages of discussion, probably does).

 

[Vladika]

It makes sense to me ...

Fred the spaceman attempts to tie his shoelace in zero gravity. Pretty simple, so let's call it a 1D task. Per MM, Fred can not roll a spectacular failure (Fred accidentally strangles himself on the shoelace?) or a spectacular success (Fred ties a knot that cannot be physically untied?) ... So far that makes sense to me. Simple tasks do not lend themselves to being spectacular.

Fred the spaceman attempts to rebuild the carburetor on his 1957 Chevy replica. Let's call that a moderate 3D task. Fred can roll a spectacular result (his new carburetor gets 100 mpg or the car explodes when you attempt to start it), but the chance of a spectacular result is VERY low. ... That makes sense to me as well, moderate tasks are more likely to be a simple success or failure than some extreme result.

Fred the spaceman is trapped on an asteroid with a fountain pen, a roll of duct tape, a keg of ale and the jump drive from the wreck of a scout ship dating back to the First Imperium and intends to build a jump torpedo to fly himself back to civilization. Let's call "Fred's Folly" an 8D task (at least). I would see this task working as a spectacular success simply by its very nature!

So I have no problem with the fact that Fred has a better chance for spectacular results attempting a spectacular action than a simple action. It makes sense to me.

YMMV (and from 15 pages of discussion, probably does).

:file_21: Yeah it's a sight easier to build a jump torpedo to fly himself back to civilization using only a fountain pen, a roll of duct tape, a keg of ale and the jump drive from the wreck of a scout ship dating back to the First Imperium than it is to to rebuild the carburetor on his 1957 Chevy replica...But, the odds might change if he didn't have the duct tape

 

[atpollard]

:file_21: Yeah it's a sight easier to build a jump torpedo to fly himself back to civilization using only a fountain pen, a roll of duct tape, a keg of ale and the jump drive from the wreck of a scout ship dating back to the First Imperium than it is to to rebuild the carburetor on his 1957 Chevy replica...But, the odds might change if he didn't have the duct tape

So you would advocate that Fred is far more likely to discover a new undiscovered type of knot tying his shoe, than a new theory of jump space attempting to build a jump torpedo?


"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

Spectacular attempts are rewarded with spectacular success and spectacular failures ... timid tasks are rewarded with timid results.

 

[Vladika]

So you would advocate that Fred is far more likely to discover a new undiscovered type of knot tying his shoe, than a new theory of jump space attempting to building a jump torpedo?


"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

Spectacular attempts are rewarded with spectacular success and spectacular failures ... timid tasks are rewarded with timid results.

My favorite quote by Teddy Roosevelt.

I don't believe "beyond impossible" tasks can or will ever succeed. Still, let's be sure to allow Fred his duct tape.

BTW Teddy never guaranteed success.

 

[DonM]

Also, anything with the words "jump" and "torpedo" auto fails. Marc has repeatedly stated that.

I'm serious. That is like the first law of Traveller canon.

I should add that to my "What is Traveller Canon?" document.

 

[aramis]

Also, anything with the words "jump" and "torpedo" auto fails. Marc has repeatedly stated that.

I'm serious. That is like the first law of Traveller canon.

I should add that to my "What is Traveller Canon?" document.

And yet, many copies of CT Bk 2 include them.

 

[Vladika]

And yet, many copies of CT Bk 2 include them.

And Leviathan...

 

[atpollard]

Also, anything with the words "jump" and "torpedo" auto fails. Marc has repeatedly stated that.

I'm serious. That is like the first law of Traveller canon.

I should add that to my "What is Traveller Canon?" document.

Mea culpa

'Torpedo' is a poor choice of words ... so the 'Keg of Ale' is 100 dTons and half full ... after all, a spacer will need something to keep him alive during the trip.

 

[McPerth]

It makes sense to me ...

Fred the spaceman attempts to tie his shoelace in zero gravity. Pretty simple, so let's call it a 1D task. Per MM, Fred can not roll a spectacular failure (Fred accidentally strangles himself on the shoelace?) or a spectacular success (Fred ties a knot that cannot be physically untied?) ... So far that makes sense to me. Simple tasks do not lend themselves to being spectacular.

Fred the spaceman attempts to rebuild the carburetor on his 1957 Chevy replica. Let's call that a moderate 3D task. Fred can roll a spectacular result (his new carburetor gets 100 mpg or the car explodes when you attempt to start it), but the chance of a spectacular result is VERY low. ... That makes sense to me as well, moderate tasks are more likely to be a simple success or failure than some extreme result.

Fred the spaceman is trapped on an asteroid with a fountain pen, a roll of duct tape, a keg of ale and the jump drive from the wreck of a scout ship dating back to the First Imperium and intends to build a jump torpedo to fly himself back to civilization. Let's call "Fred's Folly" an 8D task (at least). I would see this task working as a spectacular success simply by its very nature!

So I have no problem with the fact that Fred has a better chance for spectacular results attempting a spectacular action than a simple action. It makes sense to me.

YMMV (and from 15 pages of discussion, probably does).

Off course in this case that can be seen as you tell, but in other situations things can not be so clear:

John the sniper sees enemy troops nearing from extreme distance and tries to hit them, even knowing his possibility is low, he expects at least to make them more cautious and so slower.

If the task is 8D, according what I've read here, RAW give him a better possibility for a critical hit (here the difference from a regular succes, that would be a hit, to a spectacular one, that would be a critical hit) are higher tan if he fires a closer target (and only rolls 3D).

In this case, though, the chances for a spectacular failure (e.g. weapon breakdown or giving up his concealment by shooting) will neither be higher as distance grows...

 

[Blue Ghost]

Ok, I've read and reread the T5 book, and even started prepping my first adventure to run with it. To start with: I like it. The overall playing system is simple and elegant; I am not wedded to a roll-over system as I grew up playing ASL, so as opposed to some on these boards, I find a roll-under system fairly normal.

Character creation has a few minor warts, and is not something I would give to a completely uninitiated player, but then neither would such a player be able to easily build a character in systems of comparable complexity; I DM a D&D3.5 campaign, and I have at least two players who cannot maintain their own characters' experience progression without help from the rest of the table.

That being said, I have found at least one mechanic which is broken in its very design: the Spectacular Failure rule. The simpler formulation: roll three 1s on any task requiring three or more dice is a spectacular failure.

For an author that has spent so much time on getting the statistical underpinnings right, I am rather shocked that Marc Miller made the same mistake as Mark Rein*hagen did in Vampire: The Masquerade: the higher your proficiency at a task, the higher the chance that you fail spectacularly.

I cannot think of any justification for such a completely broken concept. The warts in T5 such as the messy organisation I can live with, but my first houserule will be to discard this particular rule without prejudice.

To me it's akin to rolling a 1 on D20, which is an automatic "fumble".